Disposed

M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) IV

Kerala HC11 Jan 2022WP(C)/771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a writ petition challenging stay orders of the VAT Appellate Tribunal that required a 30% deposit. The court held the deposit amount was not prejudicial but extended the time limit for payment to three months in equated instalments.

What did the court decide?

Extended time limit to deposit 30% of disputed demand and security bond in three equated monthly instalments starting 15/02/2022.

M/S. Krishna Holiday Village Vs the Assistant Commissioner… — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. KRISHNA HOLIDAY VILLAGE, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.B.JIJU. BY ADVS. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR ANTONY JONES

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) IV, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GOODS SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680004. 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, CHERROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673032.

¶10

3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680004.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

DR.THUSHARA JAMES-SR GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 771 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner challenges orders of conditional stay issued by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal produced as Ext.P9 and Ext.P10.

¶21

Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963 and is running a bar attached hotel. For the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14, petitioner was issued with assessment orders both dated 31/03/2018. Challenging the said assessment orders, petitioner preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed and thereafter second appeals have been preferred before the Tribunal. Pending consideration of the appeals orders of stay have been issued by the Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand and also on furnishing

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶24

security bond for the balance amount within one month. The aforesaid orders of stay issued by the Tribunal are impugned in this writ petition.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader Dr.Thushara James.

¶26

Petitioner contended that the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal is too onerous and causes prejudice apart from if not being a speaking order.

¶27

The learned Senior Government Pleader contends that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is not to be interfered with in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially, since the amount directed to be deposited for the grant of stay was not substantial, considering the total amount involved. It was also submitted that, this Court had, on earlier occasions decline to interfere, in the discretion exercised by the Tribunal for granting an order of stay.

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. On a perusal of the orders impugned in this writ petition, it is evident that the Tribunal has granted a stay by directing deposit of 30% of the disputed demand. A reason, however, brief it may be, has also been mentioned by the Tribunal for imposing such a condition. On a consideration of the amount involved in the appeal, I am of the view that the direction to deposit 30% does not cause prejudice, since the amount is not substantial in nature. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal.

¶31

However, as far as the direction to deposit the amount within one month, I am of the view that having regard to the circumstances prevailing now, a breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount directed in ‘3’ equated monthly instalments. Hence the petitioner shall deposit the 30% directed to be deposited in the orders impugned in ‘3’ equated monthly instalments commencing from 15/02/2022. The time stipulated in the impugned orders to deposit the amount and furnish

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶34

security within one month shall stand extended by three months from 15/02/2022.

¶35

The writ petition is dismissed with the above

¶36

observations.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶39

AJM

¶40

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 771/2022

¶43

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶44

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
	PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 31.03.2018.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014 DATED 31.03.2018.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SGST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 23.04.2020.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SGST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 23.04.2020.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27.08.2021.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 27.08.2021.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27.08.2021.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 27.08.2021.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 29.11.2021.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14

¶45

¶46

WP(C) NO. 771 OF 2022

¶47

DATED 29.11.2021.

¶48

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 17.08.2021. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 17.08.2021. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S BANK STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 03.11.2021.

¶49

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶50

AJM //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) IV

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Krishna Holiday Village v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) IV

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Rafi Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Shanoj a.H, Vs Canfin Homes Ltd.

Babu Cherian Vs Union of India

Dinesh Nair Vs Hdfc Ltd.

Shri.Jacob Pulickal George Vs the Income Tax Officer

Radha.B Vs Authorised Officer